Having regard to the decision to apply the procedure
under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility
and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting
a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dragan Bekić, is a Croatian
national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented
before the Court by Mr B. Spiz, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties,
may be summarised as follows.

On 21 November 1995 the applicant brought a civil
action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against the State seeking non-pecuniary
damages for injuries sustained in a traffic accident involving a military
vehicle.

On 18 June 1999 the court gave judgment and accepted
the applicant's claim.

On 6 November 1999 the Amendments to the Civil
Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”) entered into force. The
amended legislation provided that all proceedings instituted against
the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police
in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War
in Croatia were to be stayed.

On 20 December 1999 the State appealed against
the judgment to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).

On 22 January 2002 the County Court returned
the case file to the Municipal Court with a view to staying the proceedings
pursuant to the above amendments.

Being unaware that the case-file had been returned
to the Municipal Court, on 6 May 2002 the applicant requested the County
Court to deliver a decision on the appeal.

On 23 July 2002 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed
the proceedings.

Meanwhile, on 3 June 2002 the applicant filed
a constitutional complaint concerning the failure of the County Court
to deliver a decision on the appeal within a reasonable time.

On 22 November 2002 the Constitutional Court
dismissed the applicant's complaint. It found that the County Court
had acted in accordance with the relevant substantive and procedural
law when it had decided to return the case file to the first-instance
court.

On 31 July 2003 new legislation on the liability
of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police
in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War
entered into force (“the 2003 Liability Act”).

On 12 January 2004 the Municipal Court, pursuant
to the 2003 Liability Act, resumed the proceedings and forwarded the
case-file to the County Court.

On 24 February 2004 the County Court partly upheld
and partly reversed the first instance judgment, which thereby became
final.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention that the enactment of the 1999 Amendments and the prolonged
stay of the proceedings had violated his right of access to a court.

He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention
that he had not had an effective remedy at his disposal in respect of
his Article 6 complaint.

THE LAW

By letter of 31 March 2005 the Government informed
the Court that they accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement
and that the Government would pay the applicant 6,000 euros in full
and final settlement of the applicant's claim under the Convention,
costs and expenses included.

On 18 April 2005 the applicant's representative
informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby
the applicant waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of
the facts of the present application.

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement
reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is
based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its
Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of
the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck
out of the list.